Yasoda Nandan, J. - (1.) THE petitioners in these three connected writ petitions are assessees under the W.T. Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")- Bireshwar Mookerji, Prag Dass Agarwal and Smt. Indra Mohini are the petitioners, respectively, in Civil Misc. Writ Petitions Nos. 96 of 1975, 936 of 1975 and 483 of 1976. THE three petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment since the basic contentions arising for consideration in all of them are the same, though the learned counsel addressed the same arguments in different forms.
(2.) THE material facts giving rise to these petitions are that all the three petitioners held nazul lands on lease and had made constructions thereon during the subsistence of the leases. It is alleged that the period of their leases had expired and their terms had not been renewed and consequently the petitioners had no right left in them, except the right to remove the malwa of the constructions existing on such properties. According to the petitioners, the lands which were held by them under the leases whose terms had expired and which had become liable to resumption by the State Govt. are not "assets" within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act and were, consequently, not liable to be taken into account for the purpose of assessing the wealth-tax liability of the petitioners. In respect of the different years, each one of the petitioners filed their returns. During assessment proceedings on the 26th September, 1974, the WTO, 'B' Ward, Allahabad (opposite party No. 2) made a reference (Writ Petition No. 96 of 1975) under Section 16A of the Act to the Valuation Officer, Allahabad, the relevant portion of which is in the following terms: "Shri Bireshwar Mookerji, 1, G.T. Road, Allahabad, Lukerganj, in his/ her income-tax/wealth-tax/gift-tax return for the assessment year(s) has declared the value of immovable property consisting of a land and buildings situated at 7, Albert Road (11/25, 13/27, 13-A/29, Albert Road) Rs. 1,10,010 (43,970), Rs. 35,600 as on 2&3 Babapur, Lukerganj (IGT Lukerganj, (I) Kaladana, Allahabad. (a)..................... ........... (b) I am of the opinion that the fair market value of the asset exceeds the value as returned by more than Rs. 50,000. (c) Having regard to the nature of the assets and other relevant circumstances, I consider it as necessary to refer the valuation of the asset to the valuation officer. You are requested to estimate the fair market value of the asset at your earliest convenience and send a copy of your order to me and the assessee. The assessment is likely to get time barred on...... A note indicating the grounds on which my opinion is based is on the reverse. The following documents filed by the assessee relevant to the valuation of the asset are sent herewith." The note indicating the grounds on which, the WTO formed his opinion is in the following terms : "The Albert Road property has been valued at only 10 times of the rental income which appeared to be on the lower side keeping in view the acute shortage at Allahabad increasing rent (sic). While capitalising the value on rental basis the assessee has not considered the value of land."
(3.) FROM the petition filed by the petitioner, Bireshwar Mookerji, it appears that the assessee had not filed any estimate by a registered valuer. In Civil Misc. Writ No. 936 of 1975 and in Civil Misc. Writ No. 483 of 1976, the WTO, B-Ward, Allahabad, passed orders under Section 16A of the Act on the 8th August, 1975, and 4th November, 1975, respectively, more or less in the same terms as the one in Civil Misc. Writ No. 96 of 1975.;